Hey

Nick here, and anyway, I don’t know if bananas law is legal or not, but I completely understand if you guys want a new CL, and agree if you guys really want me gone, but here are the two sides of the argument in my eyes:

Pros of me stepping down:

You get to fill in the CL position with a more active member as admin with control of the site and chat. This would allow you guys to do things like reset the chat, add chat main owners, and also edit the website admins and delete the site.

You would have a CL that is active with the members to be the head of the GSA so in diplomatic situations you can count on contact directly with the leader, and for a clear representative of the GSA in all matters.

Cons: 

If you ever need a reasonable person to step in and enforce GSA law and balance the FG, I won’t have the power to do it. Many of you well know that the members of the FG very often have contrasting ideas and opinions of what to do, so they either end up in deadlock, or cause great controversy, or they go to me for the issue, (or at least went to me for the issue, I don’t know what we do nowadays.) If a more radical FG is made the CL than this can be bad.

Also you can mess with site admins and delete the site, so whoever the new CL will be will have to be more impartial (impartial to the point that you almost suppress most actions to do anything lol)

Either way the GA’s and Supreme’s have the power to do anything without my permission.

So how about we vote on it! I am not going to be any more active than I am now, (pretty inactive,) so do you guys want the situation to continue or do you want to appoint a new CL. 

Make a New CL: 1 Votes

Keep our CL: 8 Votes

[Nickman101:] Since most of you surprisingly still want me around (haha), ill be more active around chat and the site.

Once voting is over, we will have another vote for who the new CL will be, just so I can gauge what you guys want, then I will either choose this person or a different person.

-Nickman101

Advertisements

50 thoughts on “Hey

  1. Keep Nickman.

    Everyone I have seen, with the exception of Eagle and I, have been irrational at least twice. Nickman is someone who we all can trust. If he has the final say I bet everyone would agree with him.

  2. I am neutral, there are pros and cons. I will keep an eye on it and see what happens, if one’s winning by a landslide I MAY help the other.

    @thesneakingninja You’re saying you and Eagle’ve never done something weird/crazy/stupid ?

      1. Bravo, you’re among the least rational people in GSA…
        Eagle is mostly fine, but often nubby.

  3. I say, we go with the idea we had back when we were reforming the FG- We should do away with CL. altogether, and relegate command to the GA.s.
    The only problem is as to who gets site admin, main owner, etc.

    There are a few possible solutions, here are a couple ideas;
    1. We have a shared GA account for these things. However, if one of our GA.s were to go corrupt, the password could be changed. That would be bad.
    2. We have a trusted member as a new rank in the FG: Superintendent. This rank would have lower power than other FG, but would hold access to administrative duties for GSA. If the superintendent were to go corrupt, it could be problematic of course.
    Really, there’s no work around for corruption issues, it seems, except of course, having trusted members.

    1. I don’t think this would even work, there is already enough controversy in the FG, so in situations that require quick action there isn’t a leading voice that can rally our forces.

      1. Perhaps. There are pros and cons to both- Reaction time with a council is not great, but it would work better for GSA, most likely. We could allow the Marshall(s?) a bit more power, and allow them to make military decisions.

        On the other hand, having a singular CL. would allow faster reaction by the clan as a whole. However, should something happen to the CL.- Well, we already see that now…

        Perhaps if there is some system to allow action to be taken as swiftly as possible, it would work.

  4. Nick no one wants to force you to step down, you are by far the best choice for CL. And until you step down Nick, you are currently the best choice for CL. The only problem we have with you is activity, other than that it’d be in GSA’s best interest to keep you as CL.

    I vote to keep our current CL.

    1. No single person can really be trusted with command- All of us have imperfections, specializations, weaknesses, biases, etc..
      Only a council could truly be perfect. The only problem would be reaction time when in need, but i dont think that would be too big of an issue.

  5. I vote to keep Nickman as CL.

    Anyone who wants him gone just cause hes a little inactive can go cry to somebody else. Because no one else in this clan is as fit to lead GSA as Nick is. This may sound bad but tbh I don’t trust anyone but maybe one person in the FG to take up Nicks post.

    So what if he is inactive? That’s the whole point of why we have the rest of the FG, to lead where Nick can’t and to hold down the fort while the CL is away. The fact that this vote has to even be considered is kinda disgusting.

    1. Eagle has a point. Nick is the most well suited leader we have. However, he’s busy with stuff, and he wont be able to do much soon, so, we could use at least some shift in power.

      And, Eagle, shadap u hoe, you’re almost as inactive as Nick is. XD

  6. #NickForever

    I vote to keep Nick.
    All contrasting opinions are considered heresy! Heretics shall be reprimanded!

Write a Comment...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s